So, the very nice person from DNC called this morning, and thank you

[monmouth]

gawd I was in a pretty good mood. We have elections (local) today and I had just voted. I let her do her spiel and then stated "Ya know?....The nation was promised we would be out of Afghanistan pretty much by now but yet, 2014 is now being discussed, we're still there, Seniors were looking forward to at least a COL increase to at least keep up but nothing since George Bush and of course, the bailout of Wall Street and Gitmo is still open...Tell ya what, I have some numbers for you to call on Wall Street, the Fat Cats, they have plenty of money and I'm sure can help you but as a Senior I surely cannot."

Nice person was very understandng and I did get out of her that I was possibly the tenth person since she came on duty to state pretty much the same thing. We ended the conversation very civilly and I asked her to remove my name from the DNC list. Good thing I was in a good mood, eh? I'm thinking the DNC may have some problems in their future....

[luvspeas]

1. I hope you feel good about yourself...

Because that's what counts, right?

[monmouth]

2. I do and yes, it does count....n/t

[closeupready]

40. Of course your self-respect counts. Good for you. +1000.

What a silly suggestion that it doesn't count.

[rfranklin]

They should hear about how we feel...

because damned few of the promises have been kept.

[Lasher]

13. They have heard but that's not enough.

We're "fucking retarded", remember? That's their reaction to our complaints as long as they think they can promote neoliberal and neoconservative policies with impunity.

[Tx4obama]

29. Get your facts straight. Rahm didn't say that about YOU.

When Rahm used that phrase he was talking about the PLAN that the dems had come up with at a conference.
Do some research and find the 'original' articles/quote before that came out before the media spun the story into something unrecognizable and false!

[Lasher]

33. I know the whole story.

I don't see how Rahm could have felt this way about liberals' plan without having felt the same about liberals themselves. Sorry, I'm not interested in your homework assignment.

[Aerows]

41. Thank you...

... for saying exactly what I thought, too, when I heard Rahm say that.

[Lasher]

42. It exemplifies Obama administration attitude toward liberals.

That is why it is memorable to me.

[woo me with science]

5. This person did exactly the right thing. nt

[mmonk]

7. More so than how the DNC feels about itself.

[demwing]

23. I hope monmouth feels pretty damn good about herself

she knew her facts, developed an opinion based on those facts, and then stood up and voiced that opinion.

Bravo.

:applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause:

[Rex]

28. As opposed to feeling bad about yourself?

What a strange thing to post...

[Hannah Bell]

31. yes, the correct thing to do is give the dnc our money so they can fuck us with a sharp stick we

paid for ourselves.

no thanks.

let the house billionaires fund the fuck-fest.

our little contributions give us no voice. why bother.

[WolverineDG]

37. what? that the OP stated politely why she wasn't giving to the DNC?

I've done the same thing, for years? You want money from Texas? Nope, sorry not from this Texan. Got tired of sending my hard-earned money off to the national party that treats my state like its own private ATM, then when it comes to convention & election time, treats us like shit. (didn't say it like that, but that's why I don't give to the national party & have told folks not to for years)

dg

[Arctic Dave]

3. All my donations and time are going strickly to local candidates.

[monmouth]

4. That's what I'm doing also. Florida is a mess and to turn that around

it starts at the bottom (local)...

[LiberalAndProud]

6. Good. I'm glad they are hearing at some level.

Although I imagine the caller was a volunteer and about as high up in the hierarchy as you and I. At any rate, the DNC hasn't received anything from me recently for the reasons (among others) that you enumerated.

I don't expect it will make a lot of difference, since we maybe would pay for postage for another solicitation. The fat cats count. We're not among them.

[Bandit]

8. I don't think they need to get any numbers from you...I'm sure they have them memorized.

:shrug:

[JoePhilly]

9. If you are going to bitch at some one, have your facts straight.

This statement ... "The nation was promised we would be out of Afghanistan pretty much by now but yet ... " is false.

Obama said he was going to INCREASE troop levels in Afghanistan while simultaneously reducing them to about 50k in Iraq by this past summer. Which is exactly what he did. your claim about being out of Afghanistan by now is simply wrong.

Further more ... Obama doesn't control COL increases. And, during his first year in office, Obama and the Dems gave seniors $250 specifically because there was no COL increase. Don't hold your breath waiting for something similar to happen under a GOP congress.

And then, most know that the bailout of the financial industry passed under Bush, not Obama.

You did get one almost right, GITMO ... the Dems in congress chickened out, and Obama can't close it by himself.

[Tippy]

10. the Dems in congress chickened out, and Obama can't close it by himself.

This is why we need to work from the bottom up.....

[TheKentuckian]

11. Yeah he can. What he can't do is relocate it without money.

The whole problem is rooted in the sadsack and dishonest effort to relocate the abomination to US soil rather than forcing trials and releasing those that could not be brought to court.

Obama went for some political cutting the baby in half, needle threading deal and screwed the pooch. Of course he could still give Congress their 120 day advisement and suck it up but he isn't about to take on such a contentious situation and would prefer to willfully violate the Constitution and these people's human rights.

[Lasher]

14. I think you're right about all of that except for Iraq.

In Oct. 2007, Obama supported removing all combat troops from Iraq within 16 months, saying, “I will remove one or two brigades a month, and get all of our combat troops out of Iraq within 16 months. The only troops I will keep in Iraq will perform the limited missions of protecting our diplomats and carrying out targeted strikes on al Qaeda. And I will launch the diplomatic and humanitarian initiatives that are so badly needed. Let there be no doubt: I will end this war.”

http://www.barackobama.com/2007/10/02/remarks_of_senator_barack_obam_27.php

But during the debate with McCain, after he had secured the Democratic nomination, the withdrawal became a reduction when he said, “We should end this war responsibly. We should do it in phases. But in 16 months we should be able to reduce our combat troops, provide some relief to military families and our troops and bolster our efforts in Afghanistan so that we can capture and kill bin Laden and crush al Qaeda.”

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/26/debate.mississippi.transcript/

And then in February 2009, after he had been elected, the 16 month deadline was extended for 3 more months and the number of troops to remain was defined as 30,000 to 50,000. This was when the August 31, 2010 deadline was established.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2009-02-26-obama-iraq_N.htm

If Obama would have stuck to his original commitment, our troops would have been out of Iraq by May 20 last year, 16 months after he was inaugurated.

At the end of January this year there were 47,000 US soldiers in Iraq. But we're calling them 'noncombat soldiers' now, so that it's easier to pretend they're not there.

http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Files/Centers/Saban/Iraq%20Index/index.pdf (page 18)

Obama changed his rhetoric to make it seem he's doing what he promised, when he's actually conforming to the U.S.–Iraq Status of Forces Agreement, signed December 14, 2008 by George W. Bush: out of Iraqi cities by June 30, 2009, and all U.S. forces will be completely out of Iraq by December 31, 2011.

He's not doing what he said about Iraq. He's doing what Bush said.

[JoePhilly]

19. Here is how politiifact sees it ....

http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/promise/126/begin-removing-combat-brigades-from-iraq/

[Lasher]

20. PolitiFact sees it wrong.

As you might have noticed, I have been careful to document my assertions. From the PolitiFact article you linked:

"As agreed to with the Iraqi government, we will maintain a transitional force until we remove all our troops from Iraq by the end of next year," he said.

He was talking in 2010 about the timeline Bush laid down. He certainly didn't campign during the primary about following Bush's lead in Iraq but that is clearly what he has done. He started moving to the right on this issue as soon as he had clinched the Democratic nomination.

[JoePhilly]

22. Ok ... let's go back to your references.

In the early references, Obama is careful to distinguish "combat troops" from "other".

Obama calls for a 16 month time line BEFORE Bush does. If you examine your own time line, you can see that.

Also, Obama's 16 month becomes 19 because he actually takes some time at the start after being elected to go "in depth" with the generals. They get the details straight, and its 16 months versus 19 months, yawn.

Same for the troops levels. As a candidate he said around 35k or so would stay. Turns out, its about 50k. That's pretty damn close if you ask me given the mess he was handed.

Go look at the time line again, it is more accurate to say that Bush adopts Obama's time line, not the other way around.

[Lasher]

26. This campaign pledge might be a 'yawn' to you but it is not to me.

Obama did use the term, 'combat troops' back during the primary campaign. But he didn't say at the time as you claim that 'around 35K or so' would still be in Iraq. What he did say was that he would only keep troops to have "...limited missions of protecting our diplomats and carrying out targeted strikes on al Qaeda." But these are not the only missions our soldiers have today and that's why there are still 47,000 of them.

I don't understand why you're saying Obama called for 16 months before Bush did. Bush never did call for such a time line and one was never implemented.

You try to excuse Obama by saying he didn't take some time to 'go in depth' and 'get the details straight' until after he was elected. Thank you for helping me make my point.

This is the first time I have ever seen the ridiculous assertion that Bush adopted Obama's time line. You can't be serious about this.

You've said twice that I should examine the time line. I have done that quite a bit already, and see no compelling reason to believe that I am more in need of eduction on the subject than you are.

[JoePhilly]

34. Obama calls for 16 months from the date he takes office in 2007.

So that means that 16 months from when he takes office, all combat troops would leave. That's this past summer.

Bush's study group comes to the same conclusion in Dec 2008. That's about a year AFTER Obama said the same thing.

Bush's shift towards Obama's time line begins publically on July 19th 2008. Here are a few references for you.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/19/world/middleeast/19iraq.html
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,566841,00.html
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0708/Maliki_backs_Obama_timeline.html

And the best ... take a look at this thread from DU on July 19th 2008.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=3401668&mesg_id=3401668

And in particular, see post #35.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=3401668&mesg_id=3401885

Some on DU saw Bush's shift towards Obama's position right from the start.

Bottom line: Obama put a timeline on the table well before Bush did, not the other way around.

[Lasher]

35. Bush signed the Status of Forces Agreement with 35 DAYS left in his Presidency.

That was too late for him to have been following anybody's lead. He had rejected any timetable whatever for his entire presidency, since the time he invaded Iraq in 2003. Once he finally established a time line by signing his SOFA with Iraq, he was leaving it for Obama to follow.

Obama has since followed Bush's timetable, and will continue to do so until the end of this year when US forces are to be withdrawn pursuant to the SOFA.

[JoePhilly]

38. Bush finally agreed a time line July 19th 2008. Its right there in the references.

And the time line he used in the end, was the same one Obama proposed in 2007.

[Lasher]

39. And these deadlines he establised, under whose presidency did they occur?

His own or Obama's? That's a good way to tell who was leading and who was following.

Bush was never constrained by any time line. When he had a month left to go in office, he established one for Obama to follow. It wasn't the same one that Obama proposed in 2007. Ask yourself this: If Obama has already gotten the troops out as you claim, what shall we call those US forces that we have to get out of Iraq by the end of this year, pursuant to the SOFA established by Bush?

Even if you believe we need 47,000 US soldiers in Iraq today just to guard our diplomats and carry out targeted strikes against al Qaeda, the date established by candidate Obama was May 20 last year - a date that he missed by a full three months according to his own account. This alone makes it categorically false to claim that Obama kept his campaign promise.

[JoePhilly]

46. Bush latched on to Obama's proposal ...

and as you correctly note, adopted it with only 35 days left in his term ... after spending 5+ years fighting against any time line.

And now you want to give Bush credit for picking the time line.

Hilarious.

And yes, Obama missed his own time line for ending combat operations in Iraq (which had gone on for about 7 years) by about 3 months.

Again, really? 3 months?? This is what you bitch about??

Bush declared the end of "combat operations" back in MAY of 2003 ... remember? MISSIONS ACCOMPLISHED????

Bush was only off by about SEVEN YEARS. But you continue to complain about Obama missing his target by 3 months.

Total nonsense.

[Hannah Bell]

36. politicfact is a winger outlet.

[Lasher]

43. Please tell me more.

[JoePhilly]

47. Really? And they give Obama credit for something ...

Wouldn't they be inclined to make him look bad in all cases?

[former9thward]

48. The bank bailout occurred under Bush but Obama fully supported it.

He demanded Congress pass it and of course he voted for it. As the candidate for President he was taking the lead for the Party. To imply he had nothing to do with it is wrong.

[Arkana]

12. Congratulations--you vented your spleen at a defenseless phonebanker.

You want a pat on the back and a gold star? First, we were not promised we'd be out of Afghanistan. It's OK to not like it, but Obama never promised that we'd be out immediately. He ran on escalation.

Wall Street's "bailout" was Bush's baby.

And for the hundred millionth time: THERE IS NOTHING YOU CAN DO ABOUT GITMO WHEN YOUR OWN CONGRESS GETS SCARED OF BEING LABELED "SOFT ON TERRORISM".

[truebrit71]

16. Obama also bailed out Wall Street, it wasn't all Lt AWOL...and the spineless bastards in congress...

..tried to derail the closure of Gitmo but he could have worked around that had he wanted to, and secondly NO-ONE MADE HIM CODIFY BUSH'S POLICY ON INDEFNIITE DETENTIONS WHICH HE JUST DID TODAY.

[sudopod]

21. So what's she supposed to do? Call up the President and chew him out?

LOL

[demwing]

24. Go eat your cornflakes

Afghanistan

Obama Administration’s Bizarre Afghanistan ‘Promise’
Biden Claims War Will End 'by 2014' Despite Massive Evidence to Contrary
by Jason Ditz, December 20, 2010

In high profile comments made only yesterday, Vice President Joe Biden declared that the United States was on the verge of victory in Afghanistan, and that the United States and its 100,000 occupation troops would be “totally out of there, come hell or high water, by 2014.” http://news.antiwar.com/2010/12/20/proclaiming-victory-predicting-failure-the-obama-administrations-bizarre-afghanistan-promise/

Wall Street's "Bailout"

Obama pledges bigger Wall Street bailout
By Patrick Martin 25 February 2009

In his first presidential address to a joint session of Congress, President Barack Obama defended the ongoing federal bailout of the banks and pledged that even greater sums would be funneled from the US Treasury to support Wall Street http://www.wsws.org/articles/2009/feb2009/obam-f25.shtml.

Gitmo

President Obama Orders Resumption of Military Commission Trials for Accused Detainees at Gitmo
March 07, 2011 6:35 PM
Jake Tapper and Sunlen Miller report:

President Obama today ordered the resumption of military commissions for accused terrorists at Guantanamo Bay, and issued an executive order for indefinite detention providing for a periodic review of those detainees at Guantanamo Bay. http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2011/03/president-obama-orders-resumption-of-military-commission-trials-for-accused-detainees-at-gitmo.html

uhmm....yummy corn flakes

[Ignis]

25. Source/link/support for "Wall Street's "bailout" was Bush's baby." ???

:shrug:

[Hannah Bell]

32. she didn't "vent any spleen" whatsoever, it was described as a pleasant conversation.

she explained why she wouldn't be funding the dnc.

you have a problem with that, apparently.

[markpkessinger]

45. You are the one venting here ...

... not Monmouth. Monmouth simply explained, and very respectfully, why she was declining to donate. She did not in any way "attack a poor defenseless phonebank operator" in any manner. That is ENTIRELY your own projection.

[old mark]

15. K&R- They hear but do not listen I emailed the White House for over a year

every time they did something I felt was not Democratic...but I hav given up.
It is something they count on-pretend understanding and sympathy wor working people while raking in the money from the same sources as the GOP.
DNC, you lie!

mark

[Autumn]

17. Good job! That is just the right thing to do,

they need to understand that if they want to play republican games, then they can become fucking republicans and get their support from them.

[Dappleganger]

18. Good for you...

they need to know the reasons why people are not going to give when promised one thing and then another is done.

[upi402]

27. I'm a loyal and enduring Democrat who will always support a Democratic politician

until they prove themselves to be a Republican by their actions.

[eridani]

30. There are plenty of good local Democratic roganizations that could use your support n/t

[BlueIris]

44. The DNC is going to have bigger problems than people hanging up on its fundraisers.

Like trying to repair the massive fracture to its image in the wake of the Obama years. The stain of perpetuating two failed, illegal wars is only the tip of the iceberg.

[former9thward]

49. The callers from the DNC are not from the DNC.

Nothing wrong with ranting at them if you want but the DNC will never hear about it. Fundraising for both the DNC and RNC are handled by third party call centers. The phone bank workers have no political ties and operate off scrips. One day they may be raising money for the RNC, the next day for the DNC, the next for an anti-abortion group, the next for a pro choice group. They take a portion of any money you give to the group.